Casey v. Geek Squad® Subsidiary Best Buy Stores, L.P.
823 F. Supp. 2d 334
D. Maryland2011Background
- On Sept. 8, 2007, Casey delivered his personal computer to Geek Squad at Best Buy in Timonium, MD for servicing.
- Geek Squad diagnosed a virus, removed it, reinstalled OS, cleaned temp files, defragmented, and inspected the PC; hardware was disassembled for servicing.
- Upon pickup on Oct. 22, 2007, Casey was informed the computer’s hardware would not fit in the tower and a CD drive replacement was needed to reassemble components.
- Between Sept. 11 and Oct. 22, 2007, no changes were made to the area around the computer or to the home’s electrical system, and no electrical surges were reported.
- Approximately two hours after returning home, Casey received a severe electric shock while attempting to print; dispute exists whether the shock occurred before touching the printer or after, and whether Casey had anything in his hands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation proof for negligence | |||
| Casey; res ipsa loquitur if applicable | No admissible expert causation evidence; Riley excluded | Negligence fails; causation not proven; summary judgment for Defendant | |
| Admissibility and reliability of Dr. Riley’s testimony | |||
| Riley offers hypothesis based on absent evidence; relevant to causation | Riley lacks reliable data/methods; potential prejudice | Riley’s testimony excluded under Rule 702/403; not considered for summary judgment | |
| Res ipsa loquitur applicability | |||
| Res ipsa supports negligence and causation in the absence of direct evidence | Control and expert issues preclude res ipsa; complex causation requires expert | Res ipsa loquitur not applicable; not a basis to defeat summary judgment | |
| Loss of consortium viability | |||
| Derived from Mr. Casey’s negligence; should survive if negligence proven | No independent negligence established; derivative claim collapses | Granted; loss of consortium dismissed with negligence dismissal | |
| Breach of warranty viability | |||
| Implied warranty of fitness for use applies to service/goods hybrid; misrepair caused injury | No sales contract; breach of warranty not viable; import of hybrid sale/service debated | Breach of warranty claim dismissed; considered as a service contract; no viable warranty claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeper reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) ( Daubert factors adaptable to expert testimony beyond science)
- Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) (flexible Daubert factor analysis; reliability and relevance)
- Joiner v. General Electric Co., 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (ipse dixit limitation; reliability depends on data connection)
- Peterson v. Underwood, 264 A.2d 851 (Md. 1970) (causation and inferences in Maryland tort law)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 549 (D. Md. 2011) (Daubert factors; admissibility and prejudice)
- Holzhauer v. Saks & Co., 697 A.2d 89 (Md. 1997) (res ipsa loquitur; exclusive control and expert necessity)
- Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann, 638 A.2d 762 (Md. 1994) (res ipsa in complex factual issues; expert involvement)
- Orkin v. Holy Cross Hosp., 569 A.2d 207 (Md. 1990) (res ipsa; necessity of expert analysis in complex cases)
- Wooldridge v. Price, 966 A.2d 955 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (contributory negligence may bar recovery)